Topic on User talk:Tim Starling (WMF)/Gerrit group membership policy changes

I don't think re-introducing the veto process ("So if any such trusted person gives a formal objection and refuses to withdraw it, the request would need to be referred to TechCom or WMF to proceed.") is a good idea. It used to be there, and only caused unnecessary drama (e.g. [1], [2]). Chad (IMO) correctly changed the policy and was backed up by others on the talk page.

That said, all of our recent nominees have passed through unanimously except one, and in that case after the nominee responded to the objection from an existing +2 member, the objector withdrew it, satisfied with the response.

I don't have a good idea on how to codify it, but I would rather see a softer "veto" process. The nominee should respond to any concerns that are brought up by people, and opposes from +2'ers are given more weight, but it shouldn't be a hard veto in which one person can obstruct the entire process.

I would note that this really only applies to the mediawiki group, if it's a smaller extension that only has one or two maintainers, if those people object, then those should be considered vetos.

The proposal states "I think the conditions for granting should be either the unanimous consent of trusted participants, or a direction from TechCom or WMF."

Perhaps that should be changed to "rough consensus", giving the gerrit admins the power to overrule an objection. There should perhaps be a well defined group of people who have definite veto powers, probably including TechCom and Trust+Safety.

Perhaps the right way to go about this is to state that gerrit admins can decide to grant or not to grant the rights based on the objections raised. This seems like a good balance that employs admins' common sense.

I'd like to know if User:Timo Tijhof (WMF) has anything to say about this, since he was among the dissenters in the two cases Legoktm cited. In the second, feedback was especially mixed, it's hard to see how you could interpret that even as rough consensus. I'm not proposing to reintroduce a veto, I'm saying that if there is no consensus on Phabricator, the case can be referred to TechCom. TechCom only needs a simple majority to pass a resolution.

I'm fine with "judgement of the acting admin" (like on an AFD) or "let TechCom decide (by single majority) if there are objections", or even "judgement of the acting admin, who can ask TechCom if they don't want to make the call". To me, it's important that that support and opposition are documented, the rationale for the decision is documented, and no single person alone can block. At least not just anyone. I'd be fine with giving veto power to some people, like the CTO, or techcom members, or Trust+Safety, or Ops.